OK, perhaps I wasn't too clear here. But please note that I said that I found SR4 character generation was controlled and restricted in comparisson to previous Editions. I wholeheartedly concur that the SR4 BP system is immensly versatile and that is a good thing. Yes you can create monsters, especially if you're really familiar with the RAW, but as I've previously stated, in the end it all comes down to the GM to balance out wjhat they want in their game. And the general rule of life is that there is always something bigger/better than you or something that can scuttle your well envisioned plans of world domination (and most GMs will have no qualms about showing you just what they are too).

Is fun. Bad rolls happen. Solid performance is waaaaay above 50% odds, and minor damage adds up.

We're not allowed to compare editions; but I'll go so far as to say that while previous editions had their abuses, SR4 did not stop abusive areas as much as shuffle them around a bit. I'll also add that any point-based system, as opposed to a template-based one, will always be easier to abuse. Just take a look at GURPS or Hero for examples.

Really? Is that on the rules and regulations somewhere? Sorry, if I've missed it, but that seems a bit strange not to allow that on an independent discussion board. i mean, how else do you iron out rules and stuff, which is what this is all about isn't it?

But anyhow, you're quite right there Cain - any points based system can be abused by nmin/maxing the numbers. I had enough problems with Vampire TM, and that was only as a player. Luckily, our GM there used his common sense to cut back on the power gamers.

The one thing that tends to work for me is to inquire what sort of characters my players wish to play and I now ask for a character concept at the least before i let them juggle numbers about. But then, seeing as I'm the GM and thus the one with all the rulebooks I can dictate to them what would be appropriate for that character. Sure, it takes a bit longer to communicate with my players but I find that it enables them to actually generate their character quicker than if left to look through all the information themselves. I guide them but don't tell them what to be or select, although I do point out certain combinations or hint strongly at certain "essential" choices for their archetype concepts. Admitedly this works well for a group whose players are either new and unfamiliar with the system. Also, whilst I don't mind them owning their own books (I'm a wee bit too protective of lending mine out of sight) I make sure to inform them of any rules changes and banned items/texts that I maintain for game balance and scenario surpises.

There is more leeway now, but in the beginning direct comparisons were frowned on because of an -IMO justified- fear of edition wars.

Yes and given the Karma costs of increasing stat and so forth, I can see players getting frustrated that cannot even adequately do the job that they are designed to do (at the lower BP). One thing I see the game encouraging is well balanced characters. If for example you have five players in your group, you should have some one in the rigger role, some one in the decker role, a mage, and a gun bunnie (not necessarily a street sam or physad). You also need skills regarding negotiation, B&E, demolitions, stealth, and a host of knowledge skills.

I would also not that GMs that consistently kill off characters quickly will find their players getting annoyed, and less likely to put much effort in to their characters. That being said, I don't think a GM should reward stupidity either. Theres a balance in there somewhere, and alot of it comes down to the players and GM working together to make the game enjoyable.

i dunno about the 5 players, 5 different roles.

honestly, some roles you can do without, some roles can be a secondary role, and some roles you can benefit from having multiples of. and what roles are what really winds up being a matter of how the game is played in your group; in one group, it may be important for everyone to have strong social skills, and combat may be almost completely unnecessary. many groups will be able to get by without a dedicated rigger. some groups will find that having 2-3 street sams is very important for their survival. many groups will be able to put multiple magicians to good use. some groups will ignore the matrix entirely and/or just use a hacker-in-a-box.

none of those groups are wrong (or particularly right, for that matter) in an absolute sense. they might be wrong or right for the specific group, however, and in general the runs should be somewhat catered to the shadowrunning team (your fixer doesn't sit around thinking "hmmm... let's see, i need someone to sneak in unnoticed, switch the prototype with this fake, and get out without leaving a trace... time to call up the team with a tank rigger, combat mage, and 3 troll heavy weapons/demolition experts")

in general, there are shadowruns that need doing of many different types. the ones your team gets called in for should be the ones that your team is reasonably qualified for doing, or else they wouldn't have called your team.

I have known people to give up the game just trying to create a character in Shadowrun. It is a game that also promotes rules lawyering and nit picking. Seriously I created an elf adept rigger/face and someone created a human mundane face. I don't know how he spent his 400 bp but my face/rigger was better then him at everything. When I mean everything I mean everything. He could take a hit better (9 vs. 7,) face better (16 dice vs. 7-9,) technical better (12-20 vs. 6-7,) infiltrate better (9 vs. 6,) shoot better (12 vs. 7,) or 7vs7 if not using a drone. There was not one single roll that my character could make that couldn't beat his.

Two concepts, two face characters, one was just twice as good in every respect over the other. It wasn't hard, and I used an online character gen template so it only took me a few hours. There was the impression that every time the GM tried to give his character the spotlight he would flub everything (just due to low dice pools) and the other characters would then have to step in and resolve the situation, or the players would ask "So... you sure you don't want to spend edge again to avoid a critical glitch?"

Another person in the party created an adept face dancer and took a lot of fluff adept powers (ie. traceless walk, face sculpt) and was also just hands down better then his mundane face character.

This is just one small issue with the game IMOP.

While this is very much a subjective thing, I wouldn't call those characters "well balanced". They're each specialized in their area, but may or may not have good crossover skills in other areas. To a degree this is fine; Shadowrun has always been about teams of specialists, working together. But the degree of crossover can be huge, enough so that one character can dominate another, even in his area of specialty.

Master of M gave one example. Admittedly, it's an easy one: an Adept can use Improved Ability to outface the face, to outdeck the decker, to outtech the techie, and so on and so forth. What's more, he can do all that at once, and still keep enough points to be good at something else, such as shooting things. In the BP/Karmagen thread, there's another example, of how a troll mage can have better all-round attributes and still have more karma left for other things.

I wouldn't consider the first a game flaw, but more of someone who doesn't "get" the game. It's all about magic and technology giving you an edge. Adepts and sammies both have access to numerous things that boost their dice pools, such as improved ability, synthcadium, tailored pheromones, kinesics, and so on. If you wanna be a nature boy, you're gonna come up second best. At everything.